Campaign finance reforms rely heavily upon public disclosure of funds (“sunlight is the best disinfectant”). But they have done more to persuade citizens that the system is corrupt than to enable them to punish wrongdoing at the polls. They make it harder for challengers to raise funds against entrenched incumbents, and increase risks of extortion and bribery. The result is “legalized corruption”—not that contributions “buy” legislation but rather that the system as a whole is unable to command the loyalty of citizens. The best way forward is to prevent candidates from knowing who has contributed to their campaigns, and donors from claiming credit. Contributions should flow into “blind trusts” administered by the Federal Election Commission, which would disburse funds to candidates. Strict legal penalties would apply to anyone disclosing contributions. The goal is both to undermine quid-pro-quo dealings and alleviate the appearance of corruption. The proposal could finesse First-Amendment objections by redirecting the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Buckley v. Valeo that state interests in checking corruption justify some restrictions on speech, and could rebuild the credibility of a system now widely seen as fundamentally corrupt.